Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

Martyn1981

Solarchaser wrote: »

I do agree about right being... well i wouldn't say optimistic, I'd say more belligerent, much less likely to listen to opposing views, and much quicker to rubbish facts, see trumps America and the "alternative facts".

I thing it's only [STRIKE]right[/STRIKE] fair to say hard right, as not all right wingers are deniers.

But the far right, across the World, seem to struggle with AGW. As I recall UKIP are/were deniers and linked to the lovely Global Warming Policy Foundation.

It shouldn't be a left right issue, and neither should science denial, so perhaps it's an age thing, a fear of change thing, or simply financial interests?

Martyn1981

pile-o-stone wrote: »

Great ape and ken are ruining this forum for people who just want to talk about, and implement, renewable technologies. What is the motivation with these people? Is it as simple as attention seeking on here because their parents didn’t give them enough attention when they were growing up?

In the end, this board will start losing its members because they are sick of them. Perhaps this is their aim? They feel excluded and so like the children that they still are, they get angry and want to destroy the thing they can’t have. For those interested in renewables, navitron forum is a fantastic place for renewables discussion and as it’s actively moderated (unlike here) the attention seeking childmen like GA and Ken are swiftly dealt with.

Obviously I agree completely.

Regarding Nav, did you ever chat with Martin (with an i), before he sadly passed away? They wouldn't have had time to read back their first post before he hit the 'nuke' button as he described it.

I once said I was 90% against nuclear, that did not go down well with, as he described it as 'sitting on the fence'. Shame he's not around for me to now say he was right.

Martyn1981

JKenH wrote: »

H
Perhaps it goes back to a comment I made a few days ago that people who have right wing views tend to be optimists and those on the left pessimists. This perhaps is why those on the right are less worried about AGW and those on the left worry more about it. The optimists believe that maybe it isn’t quite as bad as the AGW scientists make out and anyway science and technology can sort the problem while the the pessimists fear the worst and can’t believe in some technology they can’t yet see. The view of the optimists may arguably now be the correct one (i.e. it will all work out fine in the end) as look at the pace at which we have progressed in the last 20 years with solar panel, wind turbine technology, electric vehicles etc and there is every likelihood that this will accelerate with even newer technologies ( as GA espouses) - BUT - this development would not have started and gained momentum had it not been driven by the fear of the pessimists.

So, first we have science denial, with you saying that the right (do you speak for everyone on the right) think the scientists have got it wrong.

Then you move on to claiming they (the right) were correct, as we are moving to solve the problem, a move, resisted at every turn by the hard right.

So you are claiming success for the work done in spite of you?

Why can't you just let us chat about renewables instead of all this cloak and dagger denial, or diet-denial as it was recently well named?

Solarchaser

Tbh I dont believe ken is trolling, I believe he sometimes feels the need to defend the great troll profile, but he does make good points at times.

Troll ape is obviously a sad wee guy just wanting to throw out childish garbage, I cant decide if he is a 10 year old with issues or an old guy left on his own after mummy died, and weirdly double posting hours apart, but I think Ken adds something positive to the threads.

JKenH

Solarchaser wrote: »

Since it's all political now, the same can be said for those still supporting no deal Brexit, even though there is a mountain of evidence that it will be bad for everyone except the super rich.

I don’t want to get into a debate on the pros and cons of Brexit but I would agree that the pessimist/optimist theory is the easiest way to understand the great Brexit divide where neither side can understand why the other could possibly be so stupid. There are intelligent people on both sides who just cannot see the opposing point of view. They can’t all be stupid or protecting vested interests. When you look at Brexit like that it is easier to see why AGW can evoke similar emotions and apparently irrational views.

JKenH

GreatApe wrote: »

Stop being a cry baby

Not the most judicious of comments and unlikely to win over hearts and minds.

Unlike others (perhaps Nick excepted) I do actually understand where you are coming from with many of your posts (not all) but you do have a penchant for winding people up and also for endless repetition of some of your less supportable views and that detracts from the many constructive points you are trying to make.

There are usually enough people out there criticising your posts without me joining in but being old fashioned I hate to see intemperate comments made. You certainly get enough provocation and I have always been impressed at how you don’t get riled so I was surprised at this comment even though it was almost invited.

JKenH

Solarchaser wrote: »

Tbh I dont believe ken is trolling, I believe he sometimes feels the need to defend the great troll profile, but he does make good points at times.

Troll ape is obviously a sad wee guy just wanting to throw out childish garbage, I cant decide if he is a 10 year old with issues or an old guy left on his own after mummy died, and weirdly double posting hours apart, but I think Ken adds something positive to the threads.

It may seem churlish of me after those complimentary words to say this, and this is not directed solely at Solarchaser, but I believe personal attacks on contributors to the forum, whoever they may be, are distasteful. I would simply ask that anyone feeling moved to make particularly personal comments should, before doing so, perhaps ask themselves how they would feel if the same comments were directed at them.

I am aware the repetitive nature of some of GA’s post can become wearing and there have been one comments made today that may have provoked such a response but a courteous dismissal will always prevail over an ill considered one.

So, thanks again for the kind words and I hope you will not take offence from my intervention.

michaels

I think there is a market failure when it comes to GW because we apply the wrong discount rate to the future. Those who are currently alive make economic decisions base don their own futures. Two problems, those with most wealth and income have the shortest futures (are oldest) so their rationale isn't the same as that of the young who have a longer future but less financial clout. And then there are the unborn who might have a lot to say about keeping the planet going for more than 100 years but of course have no say at all.

Thus whilst I am a believer in market economics I think GW is a textbook externality where the markets can incorrectly price something for which there is no proper property rights structure.

[and that is before we even get into behavioural economics where again people fail to adequately consider the long term and negative outcomes]

1961Nick

michaels wrote: »

I think there is a market failure when it comes to GW because we apply the wrong discount rate to the future. Those who are currently alive make economic decisions base don their own futures. Two problems, those with most wealth and income have the shortest futures (are oldest) so their rationale isn't the same as that of the young who have a longer future but less financial clout. And then there are the unborn who might have a lot to say about keeping the planet going for more than 100 years but of course have no say at all.

Thus whilst I am a believer in market economics I think GW is a textbook externality where the markets can incorrectly price something for which there is no proper property rights structure.

[and that is before we even get into behavioural economics where again people fail to adequately consider the long term and negative outcomes]

So what do you do? Do you base your economic decisions on the likely "market failure", your moral obligations, or do you try & cover both bases?

GreatApe

JKenH wrote: »

Not the most judicious of comments and unlikely to win over hearts and minds.

Unlike others (perhaps Nick excepted) I do actually understand where you are coming from with many of your posts (not all) but you do have a penchant for winding people up and also for endless repetition of some of your less supportable views and that detracts from the many constructive points you are trying to make.

There are usually enough people out there criticising your posts without me joining in but being old fashioned I hate to see intemperate comments made. You certainly get enough provocation and I have always been impressed at how you don’t get riled so I was surprised at this comment even though it was almost invited.

I had quoted a post from him where the last bit was something along the lines of 'the right wing arguments are just 'stop being a cry baby''

And I started my reply with 'stop being a cry baby' to tease him by confirming his bias

I didn't think he was being a baby or crying

And no I don't retract or apologise any of my posts
Primarily because I reserve the right to be silly or try to be whenever I want
And I also reserve the right to change my mind..... Multiple times haha